chapter-vi analysis, interpretation and...

CHAPTER-VI

ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION ON

JUDICIAL TRENDS

6.0.0 INTRODUCTION

The new born infant is a helpless human being. He has neither friends

nor, enemies. He is not aware of the social customs and traditions. He is not

aware of realities of life. He is not even keen to achieve any ideal or value. But

as he grows older, he is influenced by the informal and formal agencies of

education. He develops his physical, mental and emotional self and social

feelings. By and by, he develops sense of responsibility like his elders. He

solves the problems of life successfully.1

Thus, education instills in the child a sense of maturity and

responsibility. Education bestows immense benefits upon a person. A well

educated person is known all over the region because he is able to meet the

conflicting challenges.

Education cultures the individual and helps him to fulfill his needs.

Education develops the individual like a flower which distributes its fragrance

all over the environment. Thus, education is a conducive process which

develops child’s individuality in all its aspects-physical, mental, emotional and

social.

With this all-around development, he becomes a responsible, dynamic,

resourceful and enterprising citizen of strong, good, moral character who uses

all his capacities to develop his own self, his society and his nation to the

highest extent by contributing his best to national honour, national glory,

national culture and national civilization of which he is an integral part.2

1 Shashi Prabha Sharma, Basic Principles of Education, ed. 1st, 2004. 2 Ibid.

126

On one hand, education develops personality of an individual in all

fields and aspects making him intelligent, learned, bold, courageous and

possessing strong good character, on-the other hand, it contributes to growth

and development of society. It is only through education that moral ideals and

spiritual values, as aspiration of the national and its cultural heritage is

transferred from one generation to another for preservation, purification and

sublimation into higher and higher achievements.

With the growth and development of individual, the society also

develops to higher and higher levels of attainments. Thus, education is

essential for the growth and development of individual as well as society.

Therefore, there are few people who are not in some sense interested in

education. Parents, teachers, school governors, ministers of region, and

politicians, all have the word frequently on their lips, and all may be supposed

to use it with a more or less definite notion of its meaning.

Selection and administration of questionnaire and scores obtained are

of little value, unless these are properly analyzed and interpreted. This chapter

includes analysis of cases related to role of consumer protection laws in

education. The judicial trends drawn from analysis of cases have been also

discussed in this chapter. The chapter also includes the analysis and

interpretation of data and presentation of the obtained results related to the

awareness about consumer protection laws among students and teachers.

6.1.0 ANALYSIS OF CASES AND JUDICIAL TRENDS

Education has great importance in our society. The important question

which arises for considerations whether the educational institutions can be

made liable for deficiency in service or not?. The second important question is

127

whether a student is a ‘consumer’ or not? These two important aspects are to

be considered in detail in the light of various decisions.

There are two opposite views in this regard. According to one view,

there is no justification to bring educational institutions and the students within

the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. According to other view,

education has been recognized as a fundamental right. Education is closely

related to the future of the students. A heavy fee is charged from the students

for imparting education. Thus, educational institutions and the students must

be within the purview of the Act. It will be helpful in imparting better

education to the students and it will be also in the National interest, as the

future of the nation depends on good education also. The views of the different

Commissions have not been consistent in this regard. Sometimes, the reliefs

are granted by the District Forums or State Commission or National

Commission whereas sometimes the relief is denied. In APJ School v. M.K.,3

the school was compelled to refund all charges like fee and annual charges

except admission fee, when the parents got the admission of their child

cancelled well before teaching session and the seat was filled by a new

admission on similar charges. Retention of admission fee was sufficient to

compensate the school for expenses incurred in admission. Whereas in Saint

John Medical College v. Prof. V.V. Joshi,4 a contrary view was expressed. In

this case, it was held by the State Commission that after the start of the new

academic session, the demand of refund of fee, cannot be accepted. In this

case, the plea of the complainant was that he did not get the desired stream,

thus, he wanted to get the admission cancelled and was demanding refund of

3 1993 CCJ 423 Delhi. 4 1990(1) CPR 269.

128

fee. Sometimes, the results of the students are delayed by the Universities or

the educational board for a very long time. The results of the re-evaluation are

also delayed for a very long time. In Registrar, Bangalore University v.

Parida Ansari5 the results of re-evaluation of a candidate was delayed and the

candidate had to appear in the supplementary examination and ultimately he

passed both and an award of Rs. 5000/- was held to be just and proper. On the

other side, the M.P. State Commission held in Society for Civil Rights v.

Union of India,6 that consumer must be one who has hired the services for

consideration and to be a consumer the nexus of hiring of service must be

established. Payment of examination fee by the candidate for evaluation of the

answer books to the University does not mean that the candidate has hired the

services. Hire means payment by contract for the use of a thing or for personal

service. In Manisha Samal v. Sambalpur University.7 University which issued

an identical roll number to more than one examinee was held to be deficient in

services but no liability was imposed because the other candidate with the

same roll number did not appear and the apprehension of the complainant that

her marks might have gone to the benefit of the other candidate was not borne

out by the facts.

In Registrar, Evaluation, University of Karnataka v. Poornima G.

Bhadari & Ors,8 the National Commission has held as under:

“In the light of the decisions already rendered by us in Joint Secretary, Gujarat

Secondary Education Board v. B. Nithakkar, dated the 29th September, 1995

5 1993(2) CPR 345 Karnataka. 6 1986-95 Consumer 760 (NS). 7 (1992)1 CPR 215 NC. 8 First Appeal No. 245/92 and followed in K. Ravi v. V.C. Mysore University, (1994)1 CPR

894 Kant.

129

and in some other similar cases decided earlier wherein we have consistently

taken the view that a University while valuing the answer papers or

undertaking the revaluation of answer papers or the re-checking of marks

awarded to a candidate at the instance of a candidate who had appeared for the

examination is not performing a service, which had been hired or availed of

for consideration and that no consumer dispute can, therefore, be said to arise

when a complaint made by the concerned candidate that the valuation,

revaluation or re-checking had not been properly done, the order of the State

Commission granting relief to such a candidate is clearly contrary to the

rulings of this Commission and it has necessarily to be set aside.”

In Registrar, University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat,

Bombay,9 the National Commission has further held as under:

“We are clearly of the view that in carrying out its function of conducting the

examination, evaluating answer papers and publishing the results of candidates

the University was not performing any service for consideration and a

candidate who appeared for the examination cannot be regarded as a person

who had hired or availed of the service of the University for consideration.

The complainant was not therefore, a consumer entitled to seek any relief

under the Consumer Protection Act.”

In abovementioned cases, national commission did not treat a student a

consumer. However, in Tilak Raj of Chandigarh v. Haryana School Education

Board, Bhiwani,10 it was held by the State Commission that imparting of

education by the State clearly comes within the concept of service as defined

under clause (0) sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. A more realistic views

9 1(1994)CPJ 146 (NC). 10 (1992)1 CPJ 76 Haryana.

130

taken in Ravinder Singh v. M.D.U. Rohtak,11 it was held by the National

Commission that the colleges which did not forward the examination form of

the students to the University is liable for negligence and deficiency of service

because the students were deprived of their right to appear in examination. The

National Commission ordered the college to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation

to each student. The institution which takes the examination is supposed to

declare the result correctly. If there is some defect or incorrectness in the result

it will be treated as deficiency of service. In Registrar, University v. Pooja,12 it

was held that upon the basis of result declared by the University, a student is

liable to get admission in a higher class and becomes eligible for a service or a

training. If the result is not declared properly then student becomes entitled for

the relief. The ‘Student’ has been held to be a consumer in abovementioned

cases. Such type of complainant also came for decision before District

Consumer Forum, Rohtak, in which it was alleged that the University has

shown wrong marks in mark sheet and because of that future of the student

had been effected. The District Consumer Forum, awarded a compensation of

Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. An appeal was filed before State Commission

by the University on the grounds that the University is an autonomous body

and did not come within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. The other

plea taken by the University was that on the receipt of the complaint in this

regard, the necessary correction was made by the University within 10 days,

thus caused no loss to the student concerned. The State Commission did not

accept the first plea. But only second plea was accepted. The State

Commission reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 500.

11 (1996)1 CPR 86. 12 (1998)2 CPJ 404.

131

The question again came for consideration before the National

Commission in a revision petition titled as Alex J. Rebello v. Vice Chancellor,

Bangalore University and Ors. Decided on 30-12-2002. The facts of the case

are that :

That the complainant’s son was a student of Engineering College in

Bangalore where after the writing of papers for the IIIrd Year, the University

did not declare the result of the child on the grounds that he was absent. On

representation for scrutiny he was awarded 7 and 8 marks respectively in the

papers of Transmission Distribution and HV Lab. Technology and ‘Pulse and

Digital’ Circuits. When revaluation was sought, the reply from the respondent

was that there was no change in the marks. The prayers in the complaint was

that opposite party be directed to transmit the answer sheets in respect of the

above mentioned two papers so that District Forum could verify the

correctness of the marks given, if need be, the papers be evaluated by foreign

Professors and in the case of any lapse on the part of the respondent, award a

compensation of Rs. 30,000/- The complainant had made the Chancellor, the

Vice Chancellor and the Registrar personally responsible for this deficiency.

The District Forum vide its order dated 21.8.1991 decided to proceed against

the Registrar only. After hearing the parties the District Forum dismissed the

complaint as not being maintainable in the light of principles laid down by the

National Commission that the complainant in such cases do not hire the

services of the respondent. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State

Commission met the same fate on the same grounds. This revision petition

was filed by the petitioner before National Commission on 16.10.1997 which

was found to be defective on the ground that only one copy of the

132

material/documents was filed. The petitioner/complainant appeared in person

on the date of hearing i.e. on 11.12.2002. The said defects even now were not

removed. Since, the petitioner was a senior citizen and had come all the way

from Bangalore, the commission went ahead with the proceedings and heard

him. The petitioner had come prepared with the written arguments, which

were also taken on record.

It was held that this fact cannot be denied that in the first instance result

of petitioner’s son was not declared as being absent but when after running

around, the result was declared, the child was given 7 and 8 marks in two

papers. While in similar circumstances the same District Forum awarded Rs.

5,000/- to the complainant, but petitioner’s complainant was dismissed as not

being maintainable. He had specifically made allegation against the

Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar so that awarded money

could be recovered from them as laid down by the Supreme Court in Lucknow

Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta. The District Forum erred in deleting

the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor from the array of respondents.

According to petitioner he is a consumer as he had hired the services of the

University, when examination fee of Rs. 81/- were collected from him and

again when Rs. 200/- were collected from him and again when Rs. 200/- were

collected from him for evaluation, result of which was not supplied within a

reasonable time. The petition needs to be allowed and now he should be

awarded compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and cost of Rs. 20,000/-. There is only

one point before us for determination whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’

within the meaning of its definition in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

133

The National Commission relied upon two cases Registrar, Evaluation,

University of Karnataka v. Poornima G. Bhadari & Ors. and Registrar

University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay,13 and found no

ground to interfere in the well reasoned orders of the State Commission and

upheld the orders passed by the District Forum and the petition was dismissed.

It was held by the National Commission that the students appearing in any

examination cannot be treated as a consumer and the University is not

performing any services while conducting examination, evaluating question

papers and publishing the result. The National Commission upheld the same

views in Sachida Nandsharma Sharma v. Chairman CBSE decided on 20-12-

2002. It was held that educational institutions are not rendering any service

while holding examination. An omission/commission regarding late

declaration of result cannot be termed as deficiency in service.

In a recent decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi in Ruchika Jain,14 it was held that consumer fora

have no jurisdiction to pass an interim order permitting a student to appear in

examination who is not eligible to appear according to prescribed cut off

marks. The complainant Ruchika Jain was admitted in BDS course against

management quota even though she had not obtained prescribed marks for

admission in that course. Later she was not permitted to appear in the

examination. She filed a complaint before the District Forum, Faridabad which

passed an interim order directing the university to allow the complainant to sit

in the examination which was to take place on the same day and the same was

13 Supra. 14 Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Another v. Ruchika Jain and others, 2006 (3) CPR 18

(NC) following (2003), 7 SCC 119, (1988)5 SCC 377, (1993)4 SCC 401, (1986)2 SCC

667, (1991)1 SCC 87, (1998)3 SCC 5, (1984)1 SCC 307 and (1992) 4 SCC 4.

134

confirmed by Haryana State Commission in revision. In a further revision to

the National Commission by the educational institution it was held that

passing of such an interim order was not the function of consumer fora and

thus it set aside the orders of district forum and state commission by holding

that such interim orders would amount to misconduct and were on the face of

it illegal and arbitrary. It further directed that in future no such interim order

shall be passed by the consumer form.

Though the above was sufficient to dispose of the revision petition, the

National Commission went into the questions whether a student was a

consumer and whether rendering of education by university/college could be

held as service for consideration under the Consumer Protection Act. The state

commission had in another similar case linked with Ruchika Jain, answered

these questions in the affirmative relying on a case decided by the National

Commission.15

However, the National Commission had, in a catena of cases16 decided

by it held that giving admission to the students in university/college by

charging fees did not make them consumers of education service under section

2(1)(d)(ii) read with section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In

Ruchika Jain it has again held that a hirer of education service for

consideration and performance of statutory duties by a university or college in

15 Bhupesh Khurana and Ors. v. Vishwa Budhu Parishad and Ors, 2000(3) CPR 49 (NC)

relying on Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, a case decided

under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 holding university to be an industry engaged in the

activity of education which is a service to the community. 16 Chairman Board of Examination v. Mohideam Abdul Kader, 1997(II) CPJ 49 (NC)

followed in Praveen Rani v. Punjab School Education Board, 2004 (III) CPJ 70 (NC),

relying on (1993)1 SCC 645. Similar view was taken in Registrar, University of Bombay

v. Chairman, CBSE, 2004 CTJ 39 (CP) (NC) and Alex J. Rebells v. Vice Chancellor,

Bangalore University and Ors. 2003 (1) CPJ 7 (NC).

135

laying down rules etc for conducting examinations, fixing eligibility criteria

for permitting the student to appear in the examination or declaration of the

results cannot be considered to be rendering education service for fees and, no

complaint can be made for deficiency in service before the consumer form.17

But this holding is in ignorance of a contrary view expressed in an earlier

decision Sekar v. Registrar, Madurai Kamarajar University,18 wherein the

National Commission had opined:19

The fact that the Universities are statutory bodies does not in the least render

their services any less than the ‘Service’ as defined in the Act. Nor does it go

outside the pale of the Act in the absence of any Notification issued by the

Central Government exempting the services of Universities from the purview

of the Act under Section 1(4). A student who appears for the University

examination and pays necessary fees thereof certainly hires the services of the

University for consideration and is a consumer within the meaning of section

2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

Two Streams of Divergent Views

There are, thus, two streams of divergent views in case law under

Consumer Protection Act as regards giving of admission and nature of

functions of our educational institutions. In Secretary, Board of Secondary

Education, Orissa & others v. Ms. Sasmita Moharana,20 it was held that “No

doubt earlier the view was that the educational institutions were not rendering

services as they were performing the statutory duty while holding

examination.” However, the Supreme Court’s judgments in M.K. Gupta v.

17 Supra note 1 at 33-34. 18 A.P. 92/91. 19 Cited in Justice V. Balkrishna Eradi, Consumer Protection Jurisprudence 316(2005). 20 2007(2) CPR 129 (NC).

136

Lucknow Development Authority,21 and GDA v. Balbir Singh22 have changed

he view. Now, “Holding examination may be statutory duty, but

administrative functions connected with such duty e.g. issuing correct marks

sheets and certificates in time etc. is a part of service covered under Consumer

Protection Act under the garb of non-statutory function.” In Ms. Sushmita

Maharana case23 there was issuance of incorrect marks sheet by the Board of

Secondary Education, Orissa. The state commission held it amounted to

negligence of the staff of the educational institution and thus a deficiency in

education service for which compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to the

complainant. In appeal to the National Commission, two contentions were

raised. Firstly, the consumer fora did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint, for, holding examination was statutory duty. Secondly, there was

no negligence as 54 lakh answer sheets were to be examined and there was

possibility of some human error in some marks sheet that could not be treated

as negligence or termed as deficiency in service on the part of the educational

institution. The first contention was rejected distinguishing statutory function

from administrative or non-statutory functions as stated above. The second

was rejected as similar contention was rejected by the Supreme Court in the

President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Others v. D. Surankar

and another.24 It was held that issuance of an incorrect marks sheet, even

where large member of students appeared in the examination, amounted to

negligence. It was further held that award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation was

not excessive but was on a lower side and dismissed the appeal.

21 1994(1) SCC 243. 22 2004(5) SCC 65. 23 2007(2) CPR 129 (NC). 24 2006(12) SCALE 24.

137

Thus, the rulings in Sushmita Maharana,25 and Sekar26 are in conflict

with Ruchika Jain.27 Not only these but there are also other cases having

divergent views as to giving of admission etc.

There are ample propositions in case law to show that a student is a

‘consumer’ and education is ‘service’ under the Consumer Protection Act:

(a) A candidate who pays fees to a university for appearing in examination is a

consumer. Examination and publication of result is a service.28

(b) Failure to issue roll number in time is a deficiency in administrative aspect

relating to education service.29

(c) Though students of an educational institution paying fees are consumers

but consumers form, like civil courts, have no jurisdiction to declare a rule

in the prospectus on non-refund of fees as illegal.30

(d) For deficiency of service on the part of the examination hall

supervisor/invigilator who mistakenly did not allow a student to take

examination, the employer board is vicariously liable for compensation.31

(e) The imparting of education by an educational institution for a

consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ under the Consumer

Protection Act and if there is a deficiency in service or an unfair trade

25 Supra note 27. 26 Supra notes 26. 27 Supra note 18. 28 Manisha Samuel v. Sambalpur University, 1992 (1) CPR 215 (NC). 29 Controller of Examination, Himachal Pradesh University and Anr. v. Sanjay Kumar,

2003 (1) CPJ 273 (NC). 30 S. Venkata Pathy v. The Principal, Adhiyaman College of Engineering, 1993 (1) CPR

595 (Mad.) But see also Adhiyanam College v. S. Venkatapatty, 1995(2) CPR 544 (NC)

and Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh v.Gunita Virk, 1995(3)

CPR 467 (NC). 31 Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras v. M. Abdul Kader, (1996)4 CTJ 966 (CP)

(NC).

138

practice, the institution shall be liable to compensate loss to the consumer

(student).32

However, there are case law on the contra showing that a student is neither a

consumer nor education a service:

(a) A candidate applying for a degree certificate is not a consumer.33

(b) Education as such does not come within the purview of (service) under the

Consumer Protection Act.34

(c) A university or board in conducting public examination, evaluating

answers papers, announcing the results there of and thereafter rechecking

of the marks of any candidate on application made by the concerned

candidate is not performing any service for hire as they were performing

their statutory duty while holding examinations.35

The holding of the National Commission in Ruchika Jain that the relationship

of teacher and student in an educational institution does not mean the hire of

service because a student is not such a consumer which is linked in any way

with the buyer of any economic goods and hiring of service cannot be linked

with education, teacher and student seems to be erroneous. Thus thee was total

confusion because of conflicting decisions.

The question was decided by the Supreme Court in Bihar School

Education Board v. Suresh Prasad Singh’s case which was decided on 4th

32 M. Ravindranath and other v. The Principal, Mercy College, Plakkad, 1986-2002

Consumer 5818 (NS). Sonal Matapurkar v. Sri S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental

Service and another, 1997 33 Sri K. Ravi v. The Vice Chancellor, Mysore University, 1994 (1) CPR 894. But see N.

Sreedharan Nair’s case to the contrary ibid. 34 N. Taneja v. Calcutta District Forum, AIR 1992 Cal. 95. 35 The Registrar, University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay, 1994(2)

CTJ 357 (CP) (NC). Reversing Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Bombay v. Registrar,

University of Bombay, 1993(1) CPJ 37 (Mah. SC); Joint Secretary, Gujarati Secondary

Education Board v. Bharat Narottam Thakkar, 1994 (2) (CTJ 963 (CP) (NC); Panjab

University and Anr. v. Inder Mohan, 1999 (II) CPJ 386 (NC).

139

Sept. 2009. In this case, The complainant was field by the respondent, Suresh

Prasad Sinha on behalf of his minor son Rajesh Kumar. In the said complaint

it was mentioned that Rajesh Kumar appeared in the Bihar Secondary School

Examination in 1998. Rajesh Kumar and another student Sunil Kumar Singh

were allotted the same Roll No. 496. Hence, the Centre Superintendent allotted

to Rajesh Kumar Roll No. 496A and this was communicated to the Board

office at Patna. The result of Rajesh Kumar was not published in spite of

several letters written by him and hence he had to re-appear in the Board

Examination the following year, and thus he had to suffer a loss of one year

allegedly due to the fault of the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Board’). The result of Roll No. 496A was not declared and

it is alleged that this was because Rajesh Kumar had been given another Roll

number. Hence the complainant prayed for compensation from the District

Consumer Forum.

In its written statement in reply the Board stated that the Consumer

Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter as the complainant was not a

consumer, as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It was also alleged that on

the application of the examinee the strong room was searched and it was found

that the serial number of his answer book of Advanced Maths did not tally

with the serial number in the attendance sheet. While the answer book of the

student found in the strong room was bearing serial number 148774, the

attendance sheet serial number was 148744. Hence, the result was not

published.

The District Consumer Forum found that the complainant had filed the

Registration Receipt as well as the Admit Card, and the case of the

140

complainant was admitted so far as appearance of Rajesh Kumar in the

examination was concerned. It was held that if the serial number of the answer

book did not tally with that which was noted in the attendance-sheet, that has

to be explained by the Board and not by the student. Hence the District

Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the Board to pay

compensation of Rs. 12,000/- with an interest of 12% to the complainant.

Against the said order the Board filed an appeal before the State

Consumer Redressal Commission under Section 14 of the Act, which was

dismissed on 9.9.2002. In the order dated 9.9.2002, one of the contentions

raised by the Board was that the complainant is not a consumer within the

meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It seems that that plea was not, in fact,

decided by the State Consumer Commission.

The appellant Board then filed a further appeal before the National

Consumer Commission under Section 19 of the Act, which was dismissed by

the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2002. Against the said impugned

judgment and order this appeal had been filed by the Board under Section 23

of the Act.

The question that arose for our consideration was whether a statutory

School Examination Board comes within the purview of the Consumer

Protection Act. There is some confusion and divergence in the decisions of the

National Commission on this issue. In some cases, it has been held that

Examination Board do not come within the purview of the Act. In some other

cases, the Commission has held that though holding of examinations is a

statutory function, issue of marks-sheets and certificates etc., is an

administrative function, and therefore, the Examination Boards are amenable

141

to the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora if there is negligence amounting to

deficiency in service, in such consequential administrative functions.

It was held that the Board is a statutory authority established under the

Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to

conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding

periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results

and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating

answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different states of a

single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this

function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination

Board conducts an examination is discharge of its statutory function, it does

not offer its “services” to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in

the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from

the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates

in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a

course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has

imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully

completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or

rank or competence vis-à-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore

availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination

conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be

considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course.

The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment

of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the

examination.

142

The object of the Act is to cover in its net services offered or rendered

for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be

a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or

quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge

of a statuary function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as

having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact

that in the course of conduct of the examination or evaluation of answer-

scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some

negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-

provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who

can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board

is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a

‘consumer and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable

against the Board.

It was held by the Supreme Court that the principles laid down in

Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta,36 1994(1) are not applicable

in this case. It was held that the Board is not carrying on any commercial or

professional or service oriented activity. No benefit is conferred nor any

facility provided by the Board for any consideration. Therefore, the above said

decision was held not to be applicable in this case.

Again the question came for consideration before the Supreme Court in

Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur which was decided on 19 July,

2010.

36 1994(1) SCC 243.

143

The dispute arose when the respondent felt aggrieved by the action of

the appellant refusing to confer the degree of B.Ed. on her. The background of

the facts giving rise to the case was that the respondent took admission in the

academic session of 1994-95 as a regular student to pursue the course of M.A.

in Political Science from Government College, Gurgaon. The respondent

appeared in the Part II Examination in May, 1995 as a regular candidate and in

the same academic session of 1994-95 she also applied for admission in the

B.Ed. (correspondence course) without disclosing the fact that she was already

pursuing the regular course of M.A. in Political Science. The University at the

time of preparation of the results of M.A. in Political Science discovered that

the respondent had been pursuing her B.Ed. course in violation of Clause 17(b)

of the General Rules of Examination and accordingly the respondent was

informed that in view of the aforesaid rules she should exercise her option to

choose anyone of the courses.

The respondent voluntarily and consciously opted for pursing her

course of M.A. in Political Science and forewent her B.Ed. degree course.

Subsequently, the University as a general measure of benefit granted an

indulgence through Notification dated 16.3.1998 giving a further chance to

such Ex. Students who had not been able to complete their post-

graduation/B.Ed. courses within the span of prescribed period as provided for

under the rules. The supplementary examinations in this regard were

announced by the University in the month of December, 1998.

The respondent applied under the said Notification for appearing in

B.Ed. examination and succeeded in appearing in the examinations and also

passed the same. The Appellant-University refused to confer the degree of

144

B.Ed. on the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the District

Forum in the year 2000 praying for the relief which was ultimately awarded in

the impugned order of National Commission. The District Forum passed an

order in favour of the respondent vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 and

directed the appellant to issue the B.Ed. degree and also award Rs. 1,000/- as

compensation to the respondent. This order was passed by the District Forum

despite a specific objection taken by the appellant that the District Forum had

no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and award any such relief.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission

and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 19.10.2005. The judgment of

the District Forum was set aside holding that the District Forum should not

have entertained the complaint. The respondent aggrieved by the order of the

State Commission preferred a revision under Section 21 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Act 1986’) before the National

Commission which had been allowed by way of the impugned order. The

National Commission took notice of the issue relating to the entertaining of the

complaint and the jurisdiction of the District Forum to hear the same. The

National Commission relying on its larger Bench judgment in F.A. No.643 of

1994 dated 31.5.2001 held that imparting of education by the educational

institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under

the Act and further relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors.,37 held

that in view of the ratio of the said decision and the peculiar facts of the case,

37 AIR 1978 SC 548.

145

the respondent was entitled for the relief claimed and accordingly the appellant

was directed to issue the B.Ed. degree.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant had made three

pronged submissions. He contended that the complaint could not have been

entertained as the refusal of the appellant not to award the B.Ed. degree was

well within its jurisdiction and it was not service much less a consumer service

as defined under the Act for the District Forum to entertain the complaint. The

second submission was that the rules as noted hereinabove did not allow a

student to pursue two courses simultaneously and, therefore, the attempt made

by the respondent without disclosing the fact of having already taken up

another course i.e. Political Science in post-graduation disentitled her from any

relief. As a corollary to the said submission, it was submitted that

nondisclosure of this fact, therefore, did not entitle her to the award of B.Ed.

degree more so, when her examination had already been cancelled and the

order cancelling her examination had not been properly challenged. The third

submission was that the National Commission has taken too sympathetic view

for the respondent and while doing so the National Commission has not

correctly appreciated the impact of the General Rules of Examination as

quoted hereinabove and the Notification dated 16.3.1998 which even

otherwise did not allow the respondent to qualify to appear in the B.Ed.

examination.

The respondent along with her father appeared in person and

vehemently tried to persuade court to believe that the respondent would be

losing her career and that she should not be declined the benefits of her

academic pursuits on any technically keeping in view the fact that the

146

University itself had allowed the respondent to appear in the examination and

the order cancelling her result had been passed in violation of principle of

natural justice without giving her any notice or opportunity. The other

submissions that were raised are borrowed from the finding recorded by the

National Commission which had been reiterated before court.

Before the Supreme Court embark upon the assessment of the rival

submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Clause 17 of the General

Rules of Examination as well as the Notification dated 16.3.1998 which are

directly involved in the present context. “17 Unless otherwise provided, a

person who:

(a) has already passed an examination of this or any other university shall not

be permitted to re-appear in that examination for a corresponding

examination,

(b) is a candidate for an examination in full subjects of this University cannot

simultaneously read for, or appear at another examination of this

University or of another University/Board. The bar shall not apply to a

candidate appearing in an examination of the University for passing/re-

appear papers or for improvement of division/result or for additional

subject.”

A perusal of the General Rules of Examination leave no room for doubt

that a candidate who is pursuing a regular course for an examination in full

subjects of the University cannot be simultaneously permitted to appear in

another regular course of the same University or of another University or

Board. This prohibition, therefore, did not allow the respondent to even apply

for admission in the B.Ed. correspondence course. The appellant was,

147

therefore, absolutely right in withholding this privilege from the respondent.

The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant has therefore, to be

accepted that the Rule being prohibitory in nature, the District Forum or the

National Commission could not have issued a direction which violates the

aforesaid statutory provision. It is settled legal proposition that neither the

Court nor any Tribunal has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law

and to act in contravention of a statutory provision.

It was held by the Supreme Court that the courts cannot give direction

to any authority to act contrary to its own rules. The respondent cannot plead

any estoppel either by conduct or against a statute so as to give any advantage

of the fact that she was allowed to appear in the examination. While delivering

the judgment, the reliance was placed on the earlier decision and the principles

laid down in Bihar School Education Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha case. The

judgment of the District Forum and the National Commission were set aside

by the Supreme Court.

Again the question came for, consideration before State Consumer

Commission, Punjab in the form of four appears in case titled as Maharashi

Dayanand University, Rohtak through its Vice Chancellor v. Satvir Kaur and

others which was decided on 28.2.2011. The facts of this case are that,

It was pleaded by Satvir Kaur respondent No. 1 that she had taken

admission in Master Degree Course (3rd Semester) in Computer Science after

completing PGDCA. Respondent No. 3 M/SBRS College Bharat Nagar,

Ludhiana supplied the prospectus to the respondent. As per the provisions of

the prospectus the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 9000/- as fee for the

3rd semester on account of examination fee, study material, declaration of

148

results etc. plus Rs. 300/- as one time registration fee through bank draft on

31.1.2006. However, the appellant university and respondent No. 3 failed to

supply the study material and also failed to start counseling and holding of

practical sessions. No assignment or internal tests were given to the

respondent. She approached the appellant university and respondent No. 3 for

a number of times but to no effect.

It was further pleaded that the respondent No. 1 Satvir Kaur filed a

complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana against the appellant

university and respondent No. 3 to get the refund of fee and compensation for

the loss of one precious year. The Deputy Commissioner called the parties.

Respondent No. 3 had supplied only one book to respondent No. 1. He also

gave in writing on 22.6.2006 before the Deputy Commissioner that since the

other books have not been received from the appellant university, therefore, he

was not in a position to supply the same to the respondent. Respondent No. 3

also refused to settle the matter in the office of the Deputy Commissioner,

Ludhiana on which the respondent was advised to file a complaint in the

Consumer Forum. Hence, the complaint for the refund of Rs. 9300/- with

interest @ 18% p.a. Rs. 2 lacs were also demanded as compensation for the

loss of one year. Rs. 1 lac was claimed as compensation for mental agony and

harassment. Litigation expenses were also prayed.

Respondent No. 2 M/s Institute of Computer and Information

Technology, Barnala filed the written reply. It was pleaded that respondent

No. 2 had been impleaded as respondent with an ulterior motive to bring the

matter in the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, Sangrur although

149

there was no agreement between respondents No. 1 and 2. Hence dismissal of

the complaint with costs was prayed.

Respondent No. 3 also filed the written reply. It was not denied that the

respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 9300/- with respondent No. 3 for

availing distance education from the appellant university. This amount was

remitted to the appellant university. The bank draft submitted by the

respondent with respondent No. 2 was also in favour of the appellant

university.

It was admitted that the respondent had filed a complaint against

respondent No. 3 before the Deputy Commission, Ludhiana. The enquiry was

conducted. The respondent had leveled false allegations against respondent

No. 3. Respondent No. 3 had supplied 4 books and assignments to the

respondent. He had also supplied one book which was received from the

appellant university.

It was further pleaded that as per the rules, regulations and instructions

of the appellant university, the respondent was to attend the classes minimum

for 180 hours but the respondent attended the classes only twice. She was also

given one CD. The complaint was filed by her against respondent No. 3 before

the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana with malafide intention to get the refund.

Since respondent No. 3 had supplied the required study material to the

respondent but she had failed to attend the classes, therefore, she was estopped

by her own act and conduct from demanding the refund. Dismissal of the

complaint was prayed.

150

The appellant university also filed the written reply. It was pleaded that

the appellant university was established for encouragement of inter-

disciplinary higher education and research with special emphasis on the

studies of life sciences and environmental and ecological sciences. The

appellant university provides education without any consideration and for the

welfare of the society. The imparting of education by the appellant university

is neither a service nor a trade or business but it performs a statutory duty. The

jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, Sangrur was also denied. It was

also denied that the respondent was a consumer, any complaint against the

appellant university was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

The performance of statutory duties by an university or a college in laying

down criteria/rules/regulations for conducting examination, eligibility criteria

for permitting the students to appear in the examination, declaration of result

of a student evaluating the answer papers or re-checking of marks awarded to

the students and such other activities undertaken by the appellant university

can never be considered to be hiring of services. These are the statutory

functions of the appellant university and, therefore, the complaint under the

Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable.

On merits, it was admitted that the respondent had remitted an amount

of Rs. 9300/- to the appellant university through respondent No. 3 for taking

admission in Master Degree Course (3rd semester) in Computer Science. She

had failed to attend the classes minimum for 180 hours. The roll number was

also issued to her for appearance in the examination but she had absented

herself from appearing in the examination for the reasons best known to her.

151

Therefore, neither the respondent was a consumer nor the complaint was

maintainable against the appellant university nor the appellant university has

committed any deficiency in service. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed

for.

The learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly vide

impugned order dated 20.2.2007 with costs of Rs. 2000/- and directed the

appellant university to refund the amount of Rs. 9300/- with interest @ 9%

p.a. The learned District Forum also directed the appellants and respondent

No. 3 to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent as compensation for

the loss of one year.

The learned District Forum had accepted the complaint partly. The

appeal was filed by the appellant-University with the prayer that the appeal be

accepted and the judgment of the District Forum be set-aside. It was pleaded

on behalf of the University that the appellant-University discharges its

statutory functions while imparting education through Distance Education

Board. The functions of the University are neither services nor a trade or

business. The deposit of examination fee does not amount to hiring of services

of the appellant-University by a student. In support of this plea, the learned

counsel for the appellant put reliance on the decision give by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Bihar School Education Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha. The

views expressed by the Supreme Court were retired by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur case also. In view of

the plea raised by the University, it was held by the State Commission that a

152

student is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and

is not entitled for any relief under the Act.

The question again came for consideration before National

Commission in a case titled as Additional Joint Secretary Commissioner of

Govt. Examinations v. Srinivasulu & Anr. The facts of the case are that,

Respondent No. 1-V. Srinivasulu s/o Suba Rayudu was the complaint

in this revision petition. He appeared for SSC Examination in March 1997 and

succeeded in the said examination with third division. SSC certificate was,

therefore, issued to him but it contained some mistakes. According to the

complainant his surname was mentioned as ‘U’ instead of ‘V’ and his father’s

name was shown as ‘Kotaiah’ instead of V. Subba Rayudu. His date of birth

also came to be shown as 22.4.1981 instead of 6.6.1981. The complainant,

therefore, addressed several letters to OP-School for rectification of the

alleged mistakes but because of the time taken in the process, he lost three

valuable academic years and could not pursue his studies for want of

Secondary School Certificate. He, therefore, lodged a complaint before the

District Forum, Prakasam District. The District Forum vide its order dated

21.3.2002 allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards

mental agony with interest @ 9% p.a. from 19.5.2000 till the realization along

with a sum of Rs. 500 by way of costs. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner

herein who was OP-1 before the District Forum challenged this order of the

District Forum before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission at Hyderabad through an appeal. The State Commission did not

find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum and dismissed

153

the appeal of the OP-1/appellant. The petitioner had now approached National

Commission challenging this order of the State Commission passed on

13.9.2006 through the present revision petition.

In its revision petition, the petitioner had denied any deficiency in

service in the matter and had also given details of the efforts made by the

Authorities at different levels to carry out the corrections in the SSC

Certificate of the complainant in accordance with the procedure in force. It

was submitted that the Fora below had failed to appreciate the response filed

by the petitioner/OP-1 while deciding the case against him and dismissing his

appeal.

The learned counsel for petitioner was heard. Besides reiterating the

submissions made in the revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner

had mainly relied on the two important judgments given by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh

Prasad Sinha,38 and Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak v. Surjeet Kaur.39

It was submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the

first case the present dispute cannot be called a cosnuemr dispute. In view of

this, it was pleaded that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned

order of the Fora below was liable to be set aside.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and considered the

undisputed facts of this case, it was held that this case is squarely covered by

the celebrated ruling given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.

Sinha,40 wherein the Apex Court held as under:

38 IV 2009(8) SCC 483. 39 V (2010) SLT 545. 40 Supra.

154

“Process of holding examinations evaluating answer scripts, declaring results

and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-

commercial function It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory

and partly administrative. When Examination Board conducts an examination

in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its ‘services’ to any

candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted

by Board, hire or avail of any service from the Board for a consideration. On

the other hand, a candidate who participates in examination conducted by

Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the

Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit

to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education;

and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-à-vis other

examinees. The process is not therefore a ailment of a service by a student, but

participation in a general examination conducted by Board to ascertain

whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully

completed secondary education course. The examination fee paid by student is

not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for

privilege of participation in the examination. The Act does not intend to cover

discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be

declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the

examination. The fact that in the course of conducting of examination, or

evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there

may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board

into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a

155

consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. The Board is not a

‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’

and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the

Board.”

The National Commission held that the petitioner cannot be called a

service provider and the respondent who appeared in the examination cannot

be treated as a consumer. Hence, petition is not maintainable under the

Consumer Protection Act.

The Catina of the cases decided by the Supreme Court and the National

Commission have settled down the controversy in this regard.

Now, it has been clearly established that a student is not a consumer

and the educational institutions do not fall within the purview of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986.

Thus, there are two contrary views regarding this particular aspect.

When there is degradation of moral values in the society and imparting

education has ceased to be a holy profession. There is commercialization in

educational field and the educational institutions are taking very high fee even

when the basis infrastructure facilities are not available in the educational

institutions.

The judicial decisions of various state commissions and national

commission in some cases indicates that the functions of

universities/boards/institutions have been divided into two categories.

1. Administrative

2. Educative/Statutory

156

As for as deficiency in administrative function is concerned the students have

been treated as a consumer and has been given reliefs in case of late

declaration of result, wrong dispatch of roll number, error in mark-sheet etc. in

some cases. However as for as educative functions/statutory functions are

concerned, educative part is not treated as ‘service’ availed by student for

considerations. This is not a healthy trend. There are various institutions which

are playing with the future of students. They are charging high fees but lack

teaching and other infrastructure facilities. The grievances of the students go

unheard at various forms. Right to education becomes meaningless. There is

urgent need to make a change in the attitude. As we have already discussed

various types of services availed or hired for consideration have been included

within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Telephone, Postal,

Banking Housing Construction, Transport, Courier, Medical and other services

are included within the scope of the Act. If there is deficiency in any of the

services the aggrieved person may claim relief under the Act. In the modern

period education has ceased to be mission. Teaching has ceased to be a pious

profession. There are a number of institutions, tuition and coaching centres

who are providing education and training to various students. Such institutions

give attractive advertisement and charge heavy fee, though teaching and other

infrastructure are not available with them. They cheat such students and the

innocent students can’t claim any remedy under the consumer protection Act.

There are various administrative lapses on the part of university/boards. The

time and money is wasted to get the discrepancies removed by he students. To

make the educational institutions more responsible, they should also be within

157

the scope of the consumer protection Act, 1986. There is urgent need to review

the decisions given by the Supreme Court.

6.2.0 RESULTS RELATED TO AWARENESS ABOUT CONSUMER

PROTECTION LAWS

The subsidiary objective of the present study is to study the awareness

among students and teachers about consumer protection laws. The data related

to these objectives was collected by using the selected questionnaire. The data

was analysed and the results are given as under:

6.2.1 RESULTS RELATED TO GENERAL AWARENESS ABOUT

CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS, CONSUMER RIGHTS AND

CONSUMERS SPECIFIC RIGHTS AMONG STUDENTS

One of the subsidiary objective of the present study was to ascertain the

awareness about consumer protection laws, consumer rights and consumer’s

specific rights among students of Rohtak district. The data was collected by

using the selected tool keeping in view the objectives of the study. The

obtained data was analysed and is given in Table

Table 6.1

Respondents No. of

Respondents

Results in %

Yes/No

2

Male Students 100 Yes 55

No. 45

4.98 Female Students 100 Yes 40

No 60

Rural Students 100 Yes 32

No 68

19.26 Urban Students 100 Yes 63

No 37

Under Graduate 100 Yes 29

No 71

4.25 Post Graduate 100 Yes 66

No. 34

158

From Table 6.1 it is clear that on an average only 47.5% students have general

awareness about consumer protection laws, consumer rights and specific

rights. The remaining 52.5 percent students have no awareness regarding the

above said areas. When male and female students are compared in these areas

of awareness, only 55% students have general awareness while only 40%

female students are awareness. Similarly the students belonging to urban areas

are more aware (63%) and only 32% college students belonging to rural areas

are aware. The percentage of postgraduate student is more (66%) while only

29% graduate students are aware about consumer protection laws. The

remaining 71% undergraduate students are not aware about these laws. The

calculated 2 value for students belonging to rural, urban areas, graduate and

post graduate and male and female is with 1 df. The calculated value of 2 for

all the categories of respondents is higher than the table value (3.84). This

means that male students differ in their awareness about consumer protection

laws, consumer rights and specific rights. Similarly all other categories of

students, i.e. female, rural, urban, graduate and postgraduate all differ in the

awareness.

6.2.2 RESULT RELATED TO STUDENTS AWARENESS ABOUT

CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCILS, CONSUMER FORA,

SELECTION PROCEDURE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESIDENT

AND MEMBERS

The another area of the questionnaire consist of the questions to check

the awareness about consumer councils, consumer for a, the selection

159

procedure and qualifications of the president and members. The responses of

students were analyzed and are presented in table 6.2

Table 6.2

Table showing the percentage and 2 value of awareness

Category/ Class

of people

No. of

Respondents

Results in %

Yes/No 2


No. 43


No 55


No 63


No 35


No. 70


No. 28

Table 6.2 reveals that only 57% of male students are aware about the

consumer councils, district form, procedure and qualification of the president

and members while the remaining 43% have no awareness. In case of female

students only 45% are aware while 55% female students are not aware about

these areas. On analysis of data related to students belonging to rural and

urban area, it reveals that only 37% rural students are aware while in case of

urban students this percentage is quite high (65%). The post graduate students

percentage is higher (72%) as compared to undergraduate students percentage

(30%). The remaining 70% undergraduate students are not aware about

consumer fora, councils etc.

The calculated 2 value is more than the table value at 0.05 level which

indicates that all the categories of students differ in their awareness regarding

the areas of awareness. The reasons for being more awareness among urban

students may be establishment of courts, consumer fora and other judicial

complexes in the city. Similarly the reasons for more percentage of PG

160

students having awareness may be the interaction of the students with the

students of law faculty in the campus.

6.2.3 RESULT RELATED TO AWARENESS ABOUT PROCEDURE,

FEE, REMEDIES AND PUNISHMENT AMONG STUDENTS

The questionnaire also contains the questions to check the awareness

among students about the procedural laws, fee, punishment and remedies. The

data related to this aspect was analysed and is given in table 6.3.

Table 6.3

Category of Respondent No. of

Respondents

Results in %

Yes/No 2


No. 65


No 75


No 80


No 60


No. 76


No. 64

Table 6.3 reveals that as far as the awareness regarding the procedure, fee,

punishment and remedies are concerned only 30% students are aware about

these aspects while the remaining 70% are not aware. The analysis of data

related to different groups of students shows that 35% male students are aware

whereas only 25% female students are aware about these areas. The

percentage of students who are aware is more in urban areas students (40%)

than in rural areas (20%). The table also reveals that percentage of

postgraduate students is (36%) which is higher than the percentage of

undergraduate students which is 24% only. The remaining 76% undergraduate

and 64% postgraduate students are not aware about the procedure, fee,

punishment and remedies under consumer protection laws. The calculated 2

161

value is more than table value (3.84) which means all the categories of

students differ in the awareness about the procedure, fee, punishment and

remedies of consumer protection laws.

6.2.4 RESULTS RELATED TO GENERAL AWARENESS ABOUT

CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS, CONSUMER RIGHTS AND

SPECIFIC RIGHTS AMONG TEACHERS

The one of the subsidiary objective of present study was to study the

awareness about consumer protection laws among teachers and compare the

awareness of teachers with respect to gender and locality. The data related to

these objective was collected and analysed and presented as under 6.4.

Table 6.4

Class of Respondents No. of

Respondents

Results in %

Yes/No

2

Male Teachers 100 Yes 72

No. 28

1.47 Female Teachers 100 Yes 64

No 36

Rural Background Teachers 100 Yes 66

No 34

0.49

Urban Background Teachers 100 Yes 70

No 30

Table 6.4 reveals that 68% teachers are aware about the consumer protection

laws, consumer rights and consumers specific rights. The table also shows the

percentage of male teachers who are aware is more (72%) as compared to the

percentage of aware female teachers (64%). It is also clear from table 6.4 that

percentage of aware teachers having rural background is 66% which is less

than the percentage of urban background teachers (70%) who are aware about

consumer protection laws, consumer rights and consumers specific rights. The

162

calculated 2 value for male-female teachers and rural-urban teachers is (1.47

and 0.49) respectively with 1 df.

6.2.5 RESULT RELATED TO AWARENESS ABOUT CONSUMER

COUNCILS, CONSUMER FORA AMONG TEACHERS

One of the important aspect of awareness was to see the awareness

about consumer council, district fora, procedure of selection of chairman and

member and their qualifications. The data collected was analysed and

presented in table 6.5.

Table 6.5

Category of Respondents No. of

Respondents

Results in

%

Yes/No

2


No. 32


No 39

Teachers with Rural

Background

100 Yes 62

No 38

0.34 Teachers with Urban

Background

100 Yes 66

No 34

Table 6.5 shows the percentage of teachers (male and female) who have

awareness about consumer fora, procedure of selection. The 68% male

teachers have awareness about this criteria while remaining 32% teachers are

not aware. The percentage of aware female teachers is 61% which is less than

percentage of aware male teachers (68%). Overall 64.5% teachers are aware of

these areas. The table also reveals that 62% teachers having rural area

background are aware while in case of teachers with urban background it is

66%. The remaining 38% teachers belonging to rural area and 34% belonging

to urban area are not aware.

163

The calculated 2 value in case of male and female teachers is

(0.162) which is lower than the table value. This means that there is difference

in the percentage of teachers regarding awareness. The calculated 2 value in

case of teachers belonging to rural and urban area is (0.34) which is less than

table value. This implies that there exist no difference in awareness of

teachers.

6.2.6 RESULT RELATED TO AWARENESS AMONG TEACHERS

ABOUT PROCEDURE, FEE REMEDIES AND PUNISHMENT

The data was also collected to study the awareness about procedure, of

filing complaints fee, punishment and remedies. The data was analysed and

presented in table 6.6

Table 6.6

Class of

Respondents

No. of

Respondents

Results in %

Yes/No

2


No. 34


No 41

Teachers with Rural

Background

100 Yes 61

No 39

1.05 Teachers with

Urban Background

100 Yes 64

No 36

It is clear from table 6.6 that only 66% male teachers are aware about

the procedure of filing complaints in consumer fora, its fee, punishment and

remedies. The remaining 34% male teachers are not aware about these aspects.

The percentage of female teachers with awareness about these aspects is

comparatively law (59%) as compared to their counterpart male teachers. The

164

table also shows the percentage of teachers with rural and urban areas

background. The table reveals that 61% teachers having rural area are aware

about these aspects while the percentage of teachers with urban background is

slightly more (64%). The remaining 39% teachers having rural background

and 36% teachers with urban background are not aware about the procedure,

fee, penalties and remedies given by district fora, state and national

commission. The calculated 2 value of male/female teachers is 1.045 with 1

df and 2 value of rural/urban teachers is 1.05 with 1 df. Both values are less

than table value (3.84) at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that null

hypothesis is accepted and there exists no significant difference in awareness

of male/female teachers and rural/urban teachers in this aspect of awareness.

The judicial trends indicate that there are divergent views of different

state commission regarding inclusion of education within the scope of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court and the National

Commission have settled this controversy by upholding that ‘student’ is not a

consumer and the educational institutions are not within the scope of consumer

protection law. The analysis of the collected data also indicate that the

students, teachers and the general public is not aware about consumer

protection laws. Unless and until the people are aware about the consumer

protection law, e enactment of law is not going to serve any purpose. It is the

need of the day that the people be made aware of consumer protection rights

and the Supreme Court should also adopt a more realist approach.

---- o ----

chapter-vi analysis, interpretation and...

Documents